RFR (S): 8023158 - hotspot/test/gc/7168848/HumongousAlloc.java fails 14 full gcs, expect 0 full gcs

[Per Liden]

Thanks Bengt,

Agree, I'll adjust the printout.

/Per

On 2013-09-26 08:22, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>
> Hi Per,
>
> Looks good.
>
> One very minor nit. I'd prefer the output from the test to go to 
> System.out rather than System.err. If you agree you don't have to 
> generate a new webrev for that change.
>
> Thanks,
> Bengt
>
> On 9/25/13 10:11 PM, Per Liden wrote:
>> Hi Tao,
>>
>> Yes, it's moved and you'll see that it says "(was 
>> test/gc/7168848/HumongousAlloc.java)" on the index page.
>>
>> /Per
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 19:07, Tao Mao <tao.mao at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Per,
>>>
>>> Did you run 'hg rename foo bar' to actually rename the test file? I 
>>> didn't see this info in .patch file.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Tao
>>>
>>> On 9/24/13 6:33 AM, Per Liden wrote:
>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reviewing. Updated webrev here:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pliden/8023158/webrev.02/
>>>>
>>>> Comments inline.
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-09-24 14:49, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 18:13 +0200, Per Liden wrote:
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pliden/8023158/webrev.01/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8023158
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary: A side effect of fixing JDK-8020155 was that the 
>>>>>> HumongousAlloc
>>>>>> test for G1 broke. This test is designed to make sure than an 
>>>>>> allocation
>>>>>> of an humongous object initiates a mark phase if that allocation 
>>>>>> pushes
>>>>>> the heap size above InitiatingHeapOccupancyPercent. Due to the 
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>> made in JDK-8020155 this test fails since it instead provokes 
>>>>>> Full GCs.
>>>>>> This patch fixes the test. Also renamed the test according to the 
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> naming schema.
>>>>> - the name of the class does not correspond to the java file name, 
>>>>> so it
>>>>> does not compile (probably a last-minute change).
>>>> Moved the file last minute... doh!
>>>>
>>>>> - one suggestion for the test: please assign the dummy LOB to a 
>>>>> global
>>>>> static instead of a local variable. The compiler can remove that
>>>>> allocation easily, say when run with -Xcomp and the server 
>>>>> compiler. I
>>>>> tried adding "-Xcomp" and "-server" to the invocation of the
>>>>> ProcessBuilder and it did not fail though. It may not hurt to do that
>>>>> anyway.
>>>> Yep, will do.
>>>>
>>>>> One personal style comment: not sure if you need to prefix all 
>>>>> variables
>>>>> in the test with "g1", but that's just my opinion. I am fine 
>>>>> either way.
>>>> I'll drop those.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> /Per
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>
>